They know that people not caring or being aware of them isn't going to cut it, people who are aware of it and its impacts don't want it. And since it is publicly disclosed that it's there in the game, and there are lists and curators to make that more apparent, not knowing isn't likely to be something to last for long.

So it's only natural they'd want to try and improve their image, though this little stunt definitely did not help them.

Yeah there needs to be an effort to look for the problems, unfortunately the guy making fun of games because they suck and calling people "LGTVs" and making fun of queer people for "being woke" isn't a prime example of that, it's a prime example of someone pointing out that games are bad and sneaking in his hate of LGBTQ people into the videos.

We need to have an effort to critique and point out the real problems in why games are bad and AAA companies are making bad games, while also pointing out bad, biased, and hateful criticism that pushes a bigoted agenda.

I doubt they'll ever admit it, or even look into it.

Many triple-a games are going to shit, they're made with the goal of maximizing profits, they aren't a labor of love and creativity in the way that indie games made by a small team or even a single person are. Of course the people spouting "get woke go broke" either don't understand this or they don't care because they have an agenda. So they push the idea that "wokeness" the idea of portraying LGBTQ people in a positive light, or even recognizing them at all, is what is ruining games, and not corporate greed and cutting of corners that AAA companies often do because they think it'll maximize profits.

This is the case, the problem isn't that there is racial diversity or LGBTQ people, it's that a lot of AAA games are just horribly made at this point. Unfortunately I've seen quite a lot of people who miss that point and just use this as an opportunity to drop bigoted dogwhistles, and talk badly about how "LGBTQ are ruining games", both being assholes and completely missing the point.

I wonder why no one talks about mini PCs like this one they're around the same price range as a console (maybe even a bit cheaper) and don't require nearly as much work as building a PC with parts. If you get it with an OS just set up, install steam and start playing. If you want a couch experience, connect a controller, launch big picture and also start playing.

A majority of games support controller input so they're basically plug and play, and ones that don't usually also have a default preset. If anything steam has become almost the same as the console experience, just with extra functionality if you want it.

If it's a Playstation or Nintendo you get exclusive games, Xbox you don't really, these games are available on Windows or cloud. Though a lot of exclusives do get re-released on PC so not sure how much of a benefit that is.

There are cheaper and decently powerful mini PCs for about the same cost as a console, probably even a bit cheaper than a game console if you get a deal.

Probably something to do with them not wanting to be part of the Fediverse and federation, since it gives them less control of content and moderation. Also judging by the way they run their instance it seems like they would prefer something more along the lines of the classic forum experience.

And all because some people have a slight advantage in certain games? Forget about it. Someone always has an advantage. This was an absolutely idiotic move.

Let's be real we should know better. Microsoft isn't doing this because they "care about the community" and cheating. They're doing it so they can force controller licensing and line their pockets. If they're framing it as anti-cheat, that's because they know that it would be better accepted than saying something about "Quality", also it's well known that the gaming community has a tendency to accept practices that would be considered draconian outside of Anti-cheat when it's used as Anti-cheat and will attack those who speak out against them.

Ah I thought the guy who was going in was Willy and they were going to make him do tricks.

It really depends on the type of game and how it presents itself.

Some games have a very long and complex story but others might have a shorter story told more indirectly, then there are also multi-ending games which might take longer than a regular story game since you have to replay them. Then there are sandbox games which don't necessarily have a limit on how long they can be since it's dependent on how much you want to put into them.

Ultimately in my opinion there's not really a required amount of time for completion, the thing that I think is most important is whether the games are fun and enjoyable. In the case of story games they can be as long or short as needed depending on how they tell a story.